Focusun China

28 - 11 - 2025

In ice factory construction, refrigeration system selection directly impacts production efficiency, costs, and safety. Ammonia (NH₃) and Freon (CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs) are mainstream options with distinct performances. This analysis compares them across four key dimensions to guide selection.

Safety: Visible Risks vs. Concealed Hazards

Ammonia carries toxicity and explosion risks: 15.7%-27.4% air concentration is flammable, and >300 ppm burns respiratory tracts. Yet its pungent odor enables quick leak detection, and low density (0.597) allows upward dispersion with proper ventilation. It requires ammonia sensors, pressure relief valves, and certified operators, raising initial safety investments. Ammonia accidents mostly stem from misoperation or aging (e.g., 2023 valve leak incident).

Mainstream Freon (R134a, R404A) has low toxicity (LD50 > 10,000 mg/kg) and is non-explosive. But its high density (R134a: 4.25) causes low-lying accumulation, and colorlessness/odorlessness demands halogen leak detectors. Slightly flammable types (R32) need high-temperature protection. Freon risks lie in undetected leaks reducing efficiency and increasing costs.

Environmental Impact: Zero Burden vs. Regulatory Risks

Ammonia excels environmentally: ozone depletion potential (ODP)=0, global warming potential (GWP)=0.9, and 11-day atmospheric residence time, aligning with carbon neutrality. It suits regions with strict standards (EU, China’s coastal areas).

Freon varies widely: CFCs (R12) are banned; HCFCs (R22) will be phased out in China by 2030; mainstream HFCs (R134a GWP≈1,430; R404A≈3,922) face EU carbon tariffs. Eco-friendly variants (R32 GWP≈675; R1234yf≈4) are costly and patent-restricted. Ammonia avoids upgrade costs; Freon incurs long-term compliance expenses.